Hi, Christopher: 1) " ... I would like to see 240/4 reclassified as unicast space ... ": We are in agreement with this first part. 2) " ... 2 x /8s delegated to each RIR with the /8s for AFRINIC ... ": This second part is not what EzIP is proposing, because it will run into the old trap of "quickly used up". Instead, 240/4 should be used to replace 100.64/10 in creating RANs (Regional Area Networks) that are the same as the existing CG-NAT clusters but 64 fold bigger. So that 240/4 is reused worldwide like the RFC6598 netblocks, plus other possible benefits such as putting 100.64/10 back into the allocatable pool (Wasn't this pulled out of ARIN for worldwide use?) doing so, we do not have 240/4 exhaustion issue to consider. Regards, Abe (2024-01-11 23:40) On 2024-01-11 05:54, Christopher Hawker wrote:
There really is no reason for 240/4 to remain "reserved". I share Dave's views, I would like to see 240/4 reclassified as unicast space and 2 x /8s delegated to each RIR with the /8s for AFRINIC to be held until their issues have been resolved.
Reclassifying this space, would add 10+ years onto the free pool for each RIR. Looking at the APNIC free pool, I would estimate there is about 1/6th of a /8 pool available for delegation, another 1/6th reserved. Reclassification would see available pool volumes return to pre-2010 levels.
https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/ipv4-exhaustion/
In the IETF draft that was co-authored by Dave as part of the IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project, a very strong case was presented to convert this space.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240-00.html
Regards, Christopher Hawker
On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 20:40, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:06 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote: >> >> There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain >> assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled with >> a header that defines .. > > > Of course correct. It really depends on the vendor / software / versions in an environment. A lot of vendors removed that years ago, because frankly a lot of large networks have been using 240/4 as pseudo RFC1918 for years. Others have worked with smaller vendors and open source projects to do the same. > > It's consistently a topic in the debates about 240/4 reclassification.
There's debates still? I gave up. After making 240/4 and 0/8 work across all of linux and BSD and all the daemons besides bird (which refused the patch , I took so much flack that I decided I would just work on other things. So much of that flack was BS - like if you kill the checks in the OS the world will end - that didn't happen. Linux has had these two address ranges just work for over 5 years now.
240/4 is intensely routable and actually used in routers along hops inside multiple networks today, but less so as a destination.
I would really like, one day, to see it move from reserved to unicast status, officially. I would have loved it if 0/8 was used by a space RIR, behind CGNAT, for starters, but with a plan towards making it routable. I am not holding my breath.
The principal accomplishment of the whole unicast extensions project was to save a nanosecond across all the servers in the world on every packet by killing the useless 0/8 check. That patch paid for itself the first weekend after that linux kernel deployed. It is the simplest, most elegant, and most controversial patch I have ever written.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20430096
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:45 AM Michael Butler <imb@protected-networks.net> wrote: >> >> On 1/10/24 10:12, Tom Beecher wrote: >> > Karim- >> > >> > Please be cautious about this advice, and understand the full context. >> > >> > 240/4 is still classified as RESERVED space. While you would certainly >> > be able to use it on internal networks if your equipment supports it, >> > you cannot use it as publicly routable space. There have been many >> > proposals over the years to reclassify 240/4, but that has not happened, >> > and is unlikely to at any point in the foreseeable future. >> >> While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in a private >> setting, using them might also be .. a challenge. >> >> There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain >> assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled with >> a header that defines .. >> >> #define IN_BADCLASS(i) (((in_addr_t)(i) & 0xf0000000) == 0xf0000000) >> >> Michael >>
-- 40 years of net history, a couple songs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com